A64002:850
The riches of Gods love unto the vessels of mercy, consistent with his absolute…The riches of Gods love unto the vessells of mercy, consistent with his absolute…
The riches of Gods love unto the vessels of mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the vessels of wrath, or, An answer unto a book entitled, Gods love unto mankind ... in two books, the first being a refutation of the said book, as it was presented in manuscript by Mr Hord unto Sir Nath. Rich., the second being an examination of certain passages inserted into M. Hord's discourse (formerly answered) by an author that conceals his name, but was supposed to be Mr Mason ... / by ... William Twice ... ; whereunto are annexed two tractates of the same author in answer unto D.H. ... ; together with a vindication of D. Twice from the exceptions of Mr John Goodwin in his Redemption redeemed, by Henry Jeans ...The riches of Gods love unto the vessells of mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the vessells of wrath, or, An answer unto a book entituled, Gods love unto mankind ... in two bookes, the first being a refutation of the said booke, as it was presented in manuscript by Mr Hord unto Sir Nath. Rich., the second being an examination of certain passages inserted into M. Hords discourse (formerly answered) by an author that conceales his name, but was supposed to be Mr Mason ... / by ... William Twisse ... ; whereunto are annexed two tractates of the same author in answer unto D.H. ... ; together with a vindication of D. Twisse from the exceptions of Mr John Goodwin in his Redemption redeemed, by Henry Jeanes ...
Oxford: printed by L.L. and H.H. for Tho. Robinson, 1653
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
2. My second principal argument is this; Reprobation, as it signifies Gods decree, is the act of Gods will; now the act of Gods will is the very will of God, and the will of God is Gods essence, and like as there can be no cause of Gods essence, so there can be no cause of Gods will, or of the act thereof. Upon some such arguments as these, Aquinas disputes, that the predestination of Christ, cannot be the cause of our Predestination; adding that they are one act in God. And when he comes to the resolution of the question, he grants all as touching actum volentis, that the one cannot be the cause of the other; But only quoad praedestinationis terminum, which is grace and glory, or the things predestinated. Christ is the cause of them, but not of our predestination, as touching the act of God predestinating. And I think I may be bold to presume, that Christs merits are of as great force to be the cause, why God should elect man unto salvation; as mans sins are of force, to be the cause why God should reprobate him unto damnation. The same Aquinas (a tall fellow as touching Scholastical argumentation) hath professed that no man hath been so mad as to say that merits are the cause of predestination, quoad actum praedestinantis; and why, but because there can be no cause on mans part of the will of God quoad actum volentis. Now reprobation is well known to be the will of God as well as election; and therefore no cause can there be on mans part thereof quoad actum reprobantis. And it is well known, there is a predestination unto death, as well as unto life, and consequently tis as mad a thing in his judgement to maintain, that merits are the cause there of quoad actum praedestinantis
2. My second principall argument is this; Reprobation, as it signifies Gods decree, is the act of Gods will; now the act of Gods will is the very will of God, and the will of God is Gods essence, and like as there can be no cause of Gods essence, so there can be no cause of Gods will, or of the act thereof. Upon some such arguments as these, Aquinas disputes, that the predestination of Christ, cannot be the cause of our Predestination; adding that they are one act in God. And when he comes to the resolution of the question, he grants all as touching actum volentis, that the one cannot be the cause of the other; But only quoad praedestinationis terminum, which is grace and glory, or the things predestinated. Christ is the cause of them, but not of our predestination, as touching the act of God predestinating. And I think I may be bold to presume, that Christs merits are of as great force to be the cause, why God should elect man unto salvation; as mans sinnes are of force, to be the cause why God should reprobate him unto damnation. The same Aquinas (a tall fellow as touching Scolasticall argumentation) hath professed that no man hath been so mad as to say that merits are the cause of predestination, quoad actum praedestinantis; and why, but because there can be no cause on mans part of the will of God quoad actum volentis. Now reprobation is well knowne to be the will of God as well as election; and therefore no cause can there be on mans part thereof quoad actum reprobantis. And it is well knowne, there is a predestination unto death, as well as unto life, and consequently tis as mad a thing in his judgement to maintaine, that merits are the cause there of quoad actum praedestinantis